On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 00:06 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> This is building green on x86 and ARM.> > This contains updated pull requests from Khem and Dexuan. I have some> non-gplv3 fixes along with a fix to the u-boot patch due to a bad checksum.> > I have again included the gcc 4.6 enabler for x86 and arm, the kernel > updates are in place. Feel free to remove it, but I think we get a good QA> pass and move forward, if not we fall back to gcc 4.5.x for RC2.> > Thanks for your considersation
I've merged some of this but I do have some concerns with a few of the
patches:
> Khem Raj (6):> conf: Create distro overridable IMAGE varibales
Phil had concerns about this and to be honest I agree with him. More
thought is needed with this, we need more of an overall plan.
> distcc_2.18.3.bb: Fix compilation on uclibc
I think Phil's comment on this is valid and needs to be addressed.
> opkg_svn.bb: Install rcS.d into ${D} instead of ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}
Should be using $D, *not* ${D}.
Cheers,
Richard

On 05/20/2011 04:45 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 00:06 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:>> This is building green on x86 and ARM.>>>> This contains updated pull requests from Khem and Dexuan. I have some>> non-gplv3 fixes along with a fix to the u-boot patch due to a bad checksum.>>>> I have again included the gcc 4.6 enabler for x86 and arm, the kernel >> updates are in place. Feel free to remove it, but I think we get a good QA>> pass and move forward, if not we fall back to gcc 4.5.x for RC2.>>>> Thanks for your considersation> > I've merged some of this but I do have some concerns with a few of the> patches:> >> Khem Raj (6):>> conf: Create distro overridable IMAGE varibales> > Phil had concerns about this and to be honest I agree with him. More> thought is needed with this, we need more of an overall plan.> >> distcc_2.18.3.bb: Fix compilation on uclibc> > I think Phil's comment on this is valid and needs to be addressed.> >> opkg_svn.bb: Install rcS.d into ${D} instead of ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}> > Should be using $D, *not* ${D}.
Really? It was my understanding these are equivalent, with the {} form
being the less ambiguous of the two for use when concatenating strings
of variables. What am I missing?
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/parameter-substitution.html
Thanks,

On 05/20/2011 04:46 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2011 04:45 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:>> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 00:06 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:>>> This is building green on x86 and ARM.>>>>>> This contains updated pull requests from Khem and Dexuan. I have some>>> non-gplv3 fixes along with a fix to the u-boot patch due to a bad checksum.>>>>>> I have again included the gcc 4.6 enabler for x86 and arm, the kernel>>> updates are in place. Feel free to remove it, but I think we get a good QA>>> pass and move forward, if not we fall back to gcc 4.5.x for RC2.>>>>>> Thanks for your considersation>>>> I've merged some of this but I do have some concerns with a few of the>> patches:>>>>> Khem Raj (6):>>> conf: Create distro overridable IMAGE varibales>>>> Phil had concerns about this and to be honest I agree with him. More>> thought is needed with this, we need more of an overall plan.>>>>> distcc_2.18.3.bb: Fix compilation on uclibc>>>> I think Phil's comment on this is valid and needs to be addressed.>>>>> opkg_svn.bb: Install rcS.d into ${D} instead of ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}>>>> Should be using $D, *not* ${D}.>> Really? It was my understanding these are equivalent, with the {} form> being the less ambiguous of the two for use when concatenating strings> of variables. What am I missing?>
Bitbake parsing occurs first and translates the ${D}, but not the $D,
see RP's comment in the main thread for this patch.
Sau!
> http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/parameter-substitution.html>> Thanks,>